Public Safety Committee on Oct. 26th, 2026

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Australia has very straightforward legislation. It's literally “no body, no parole”. Those who are found guilty of murder and who are hiding the remains of their victims do not qualify for parole until they provide that information.

In Canada, we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so our legislation has to be informed by that reality.

I also had the pleasure of working with Helen McCourt's family when legislation was passed in 2021. They had reached out to me, inspired to get that legislation passed in the United Kingdom by the work we had put forward on McCann's law, starting in 2017. It's been on the books for several years now, and I know it's of great comfort to the families of the victims to know that there are statutory remedies when their loved ones have been murdered and their remains have not been recovered.

As Bret said very eloquently, it's not going to bring anyone back, but as an ongoing recognition of the trauma that families face, it's an important way that Parliament can create accountability for those people who have hidden these remains and have committed these terrible crimes. It's an incentive to provide closure for those grieving families.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, MP Housefather.

We now go to Mrs. DeBellefeuille for two and a half minutes.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lloyd, you talked about Australia and England. Some states in the U.S. also have similar legislation.

When you were researching those jurisdictions, did you note an increase in the number of homicide cases where the victim's remains had been recovered? In other words, did the laws work?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Thank you.

Unfortunately, there are a number of cases in which somebody's been convicted and the remains are missing. It's incredibly difficult to get a conviction when the remains are not recovered.

That's part of the deterrence benefit of this legislation. It's that those who are committing these crimes will know that hiding the remains of their victims will carry distinct penalties. The hope is that it will prevent or lessen these cases.

However, these cases, as I said, are very novel, and I would want to have a longer-term study before I could make any conclusions about whether the legislation had an impact on reducing the number of crimes that relate to missing remains.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Lloyd, you said you'd been trying to advance the different approach proposed in this bill for a few years. You tried with Bill C‑424. That means you've consulted extensively.

Did the feedback you received point to any legal or constitutional pitfalls with Bill C‑236, or issues of concern for those in the legal community?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

I have consulted extensively with law professors, academics and legal professionals in the criminal law sphere. They have assured me that there is a possibility that this could engage the right not to self-incriminate. However, the jurisprudence by the Supreme Court of Canada makes it clear that these are preconviction protections and that, post conviction, the relevance of those protections wanes and the relevance to societal deterrence increases.

I might turn it over to my colleague, MP Cooper. I think that, as a lawyer, he could answer that more....

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

I would just cite on that point the Jones decision of the Supreme Court wherein, on the issue of self-incrimination, of the right to silence, the court said that once guilt has been established, our fundamental principles of justice dictate a focus on the most appropriate sentence for the guilty party. To assume that section 7 posttrial protection should be incidental to pretrial and trial protection ignores a rather critical intervening fact: The accused has been found guilty of a crime, and “Having so found, the court places greater emphasis on the interests of society in developing a sentence that is appropriate to the guilty party.”

That's very pertinent to the legislation before us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

MP Kibble, welcome to our committee. You have five minutes, please.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you to all the witnesses and thank you, Dr. Roebuck, for your thoughts today and your suggestions. It's good to see you again after you testified for my private member's bill. I liked your focus on not just victims but on families. I would like to use that lens for my questions today.

To Mr. McCann, thank you for your courage in being here, and I'm so sorry for your tragedy. I know your heart is heavy. Murder has touched our family, but we were able to have closure, so I can't begin to imagine how this must feel for you—looking at that lens of victims' families.

I will say that I support this bill, and although I'm normally with the defence committee, Mr. McCann, I will meet with you if the opportunity presents itself. I think anyone with any compassion and sense of justice would agree to meet with you on such an important bill.

Thank you to my colleague, Mr. Lloyd, for his hard work on this bill. I followed it closely, and I will note that it does parallel my private member's bill, which is the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act. Although the bill is slightly different, the philosophy is the same. It is protecting victims' families in this case. It's a very fine line, and there must be a balance, but it's great to see that our Conservative bills are supporting victims' families, victims' rights and so forth.

It's an important balance to have that philosophy between families' rights and the criminals' rights. Could you speak to whether you feel your bill achieves that balance properly and ultimately puts victims' rights ahead of criminals' rights?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Thank you for that, and thank you for your advocacy on the rights of victims.

This legislation really balances the rights of victims and the rights of offenders. In many ways, the key aspect is to codify this at parole hearings, because in the 2024 day parole hearing that Mr. Vader had, the Parole Board said quite clearly that you are not required to take accountability for your actions in order to be eligible for parole. It's not a requirement for consideration by a parole board.

I would say that for any Canadian who's watching this, the idea that somebody was found guilty of the death of another person, knows where the remains are, was found by a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt to be withholding that information and could be free to walk the streets on parole while families continue to grieve without the knowledge of where their loved ones are.... I think people would rightly say that this is not the sign of what a just society is.

Including this not as a requirement, but as a discretionary ability of the parole boards to put this into consideration and, as Dr. Roebuck said, to explain to the families why they've made that consideration or why they haven't made that consideration, is a key way to help provide closure for victims' families, as well as to give the offenders an opportunity to take accountability for their crimes and to show that they are somehow being rehabilitated by taking that accountability.

Thank you.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much.

My next question is for Mr. McCann.

When you were speaking about rehabilitation in your statement, I very much appreciated it when you said that criminals need to show “genuine...responsibility”—I'm quoting you—for what has happened. This bill speaks to that. It's a really important part.

Maybe I'll ask you the same question: Do you feel that this bill strikes the right balance between victims and victims' families in your case, versus...?

I'm sorry; this is a tough question for you, but as I said, I appreciate your courage.

Does it strike the right balance between victims' families' rights and criminals' rights in light of your statement about accepting responsibility?

[Bret McCann]

Yes. I'm not a legal expert or a constitutional expert, but I think it strikes a good balance.

My understanding is that post conviction, it is a factor in somebody's sentence and a factor in somebody's ability to get parole, and this needs to be taken into account. Whoever is making a decision in the justice system or in the parole board needs to take that factor into account and explain how and why that affected their decision.

That's a very reasonable balance. It makes it open to families and to our society as to why somebody is either denied parole or granted parole.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. McCann.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. Kibble.

It's now over to Mr. Powlowski for five minutes.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you all for being here, and thanks particularly to you, Mr. McCann.

My understanding is that it's three in the morning in Australia. I certainly understand that it might be frustrating for you that we're questioning something that means a lot to you and would seem on the face of it to be quite a reasonable request, but we have to consider a number of factors, including, perhaps most importantly, the constitutionality of it. Please bear with us as we're asking these questions, because we are trying to help you in achieving what you're trying to achieve.

First, let me ask Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Cooper if this is really necessary. Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code talks about “Other sentencing principles”, and it says:

A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

It would seem open to courts to take this factor into account. Do we really need it, given that there is the ability to do this already?

I welcome either of you to respond.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Powlowski is quite right in terms of the sentencing principles set out in section 718 of the Criminal Code. As I stated in my opening statement, this bill is entirely consistent with those sentencing principles, so why not codify a requirement to give consideration to a refusal to disclose?

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you.

I have a follow-up question.

My understanding is that the judge first has to determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether a person committed the crime. There would then be a second step, which is for the judge to determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether the perpetrator is not disclosing where the bodies are. I assume that's part of the same trial process.

I'm wondering about the logistics of the trial process. Is this going to create a cumbersome two-step process, such that you're not only going to have to get the conviction but you're also going to have to make a determination as to whether there's sufficient evidence that they're not disclosing where the bodies are?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Constitutionally, that would have to be made out beyond a reasonable doubt, so I don't see it as particularly cumbersome.

At the end of the day, a judge has to make a determination as to whether the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In the course of a judge's making that determination, submissions can be made by the Crown that the accused is withholding a material fact—information surrounding the whereabouts of the remains of the victim.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Do you think, though, that this would add...? You could add other conditions on sentencing, so the judge has to determine whether a person is guilty, determine whether they think the person is hiding the bodies and then determine whether they think this was motivated by hate. You keep adding on things the judge has.... Could and should this not be left to the sentencing determination? Judges are given the broad mandate, as we've seen under the Criminal Code, as to what to consider in the sentencing.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

I don't see it as a particularly cumbersome thing.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

I can add to that.

Already, it's going to be quite clear that the facts of the case.... By determining that somebody is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the circumstances by which that decision is made will also touch on the decision on the evidence of, “Does this person have that information?”

Now, there could be a case in which somebody was in a state of being addicted to drugs; they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this person has the information, but they can prove the person is guilty of the crime. This would not take effect in a case like that unless the Crown can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Mr. McCann, you raised your hand.

[Bret McCann]

Yes, I want to briefly point out that in Vader's case, he appealed his conviction to the Alberta Court of Appeal, and they returned a judgment in 2019. I'm quoting a part of their statement, in paragraph 13: “That Travis Vader killed Lyle and Marie McCann during an armed robbery and then concealed their remains, has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.”

I want to point out that this was a part of the judgment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you, Mr. McCann.

Thank you, MP Powlowski.

Thank you to all four witnesses for their invaluable contribution today. I especially want to thank Mr. McCann for making the time to meet with us and going to so much effort to prepare.

Mr. McCann, you heard how grateful the committee members are for everything you've done and continue to do for yourself, your family and many others.

I also want to thank the other witnesses, including our two fellow members.

We're going to take a short break to bring in our second panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jean-Yves Duclos]

Thank you. We are back.

The meeting has resumed, and joining us are a number of witnesses. Welcome.

First of all, from the Correctional Service of Canada, we have Kirstan Gagnon, assistant commissioner, public affairs, culture and engagement sector; and Katherine Belhumeur, director general, offender programs and reintegration branch, operations sector.

Then, from the Department of Justice, we have Joanna Wells, team lead and senior counsel, criminal law policy section.

Lastly, from the Parole Board of Canada, we have Liane Sauer, deputy chairperson; and Shannon Dorken, acting director general, policy, planning and operations.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you for making time to meet with the committee.

We will start with Ms. Gagnon's opening statement. You have five minutes.